That awkward moment when Wired completely rips off all of your research regarding the Torsploit for one of their articles.

So apparently Wired used all my research about the FBI's use of CIPAV against TOR and wrote an article with some small portions being clearly reworded versions of some of my posts and it has now spawned countless spin-off articles.

I'd also notify the chief editor of whatever department this author is a part of. CC him on it to help necessitate the gravity and seriousness of your desire to (rightfully so) see your work attributed.

Most importantly: don't let this guy get away with this. He and the site are profiting from your work and effort and that is, at its most basic, wildly unacceptable.

This is appalling, but it does happen. It could be considered fair use. Do some searches on the internet and get yourself informed.

If you take it to a reputable law firm they will probably write a '[cease and desist] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cease_and_desist)' letter to wired. They could also ask them to take down the article or provide attribution, link or whatever else it is that you want. It depends on how serious wired think you are as to whether you will get any result from them.

If you don't use a lawyer, you could write a letter directly to them, not an email. Use registered mail in case you decide to use it later in court.

Other options involve thinking creatively. Use twitter. Let his peers know by @mentioning them and then linking to this thread. Facebook, Instagram etc. He will think twice about doing the same thing again.

I have thought about the same thing happening with the information that I am putting on the internet from Li and the Extraterrestrial People. Media companies though are reluctant to even link to the blog www.scientiahighconfidence.blogspot.com.

Once they see cashable opportunities they will probably try to cheat. Will have to write a book/screen play before they get a chance. Probably one of the reasons I'm not disclosing everything. Have to make a buck - lol.

The writer should be fired and the editor should at least make an apology. The big media outlets who compete with Buzzfeed went nuts over a similar issue just last week. Report this to Gawker, Huffington Post, the major news outlets AND Wired.

Well just look up my posting history you can see that my posts were the primary source of information for his article. Only a few parts were almost copied word for word.

Most importantly is the inclusion of Grant Klein. Prior to my investigation of the FBI investigation no one knew that Grant Klein was arrested as part of the FH attack. There were 2 posts by other people that never got any steam that speculated about it but they never actually looked into it. Once I confirmed it I basically just wen't on a crusade uncovering more and more and sharing what I found.

Certain things I shared were not found in the legal documents associated with Grant Klein, like their mention of the servers being cloned , I found that out while looking through documents about some guy who was arrested as part of a separate investigation

He also mentions about ongoing legislation regarding the jurisdictional warrant requirement when using NIT/CIPAV attacks. This is another thing that was discussed heavily between myself and other Redditors in some of my threads.

I give him credit for uncovering SOME new information but it's just very clear that the author of that article followed my posts and then used it as source information for this article.

I get his point. While you are saying what makes it wrong in a hypothetical/ethical "what is good/bad?" sort of way, he is talking about what makes it wrong in a practical, real world way. As in: who enforces copyright and whatnot? Governments. Take away something to enforce these rules and they are meaningless. Take any rule that is rarely enforced(jaywalking, torrenting) and see how seriously people take it.